On 6th September 2018, Labour MP David Lammy moved a motion, criticising the UK's "broken" immigration system and calling on the government to allow an 'immigration amnesty' for the estimated 600,000 people live illegally in the UK. He critcised the government's record, saying that the average length of time in detention is 19 months, while in France it is only 1 month. He also criticised the cost to the taxpayer "The country’s detention estate is one of the largest in Europe, costing more than £160 million a year. The average cost of detaining one person in this system is about £36,000—greater than the fees of Eton, Harrow or any of the country’s poshest boarding schools." He called on a cross-party effort to reform the immigration system.

In response Minister for Immigration Caroline Nokes laid out how the government has been reforming the UK's immigration system.

On 27th June 2018, Lord Ramsbotham (Crossbench) moved to motion that the House of Lords "regrets that the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations and the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018 were made before Stephen Shaw CBE had completed his review of the implementation of the report, Review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, preventing his concerns about the definition of torture from being taken into account, and resulting in a definition too complex to be easily applied by caseworkers and doctors being included". A debate then followed.

On 14th June 2018, Labour MP Joan Ryan brought a debate to Westminster Hall in the House of Commons on the detention of victims of torture and other vulnerable people. This debate was brought after the Home Secretary laid two Statutory Instruments before parliament in March, that introduced a new definition of torture within the Detention Centre Rules and Adults at Risk policy. These changes are due to come into effect on 2nd July 2018.

In Joan Ryan's opening speech she laid out the reasons for the debate, citing the failure of the Adult's at Risk policy and Detention Centre rules to prevent the detention of survivors of torture and other vulnerable people. She gave strong evidence of the risks: "There were 2,272 people on formal self-harm watch last year. That constitutes approximately 8% of the detained population, or almost one in 10."

"In its most recent inspection report on Yarl’s Wood, published in November 2017, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons found that vulnerable women were still being detained, despite “professional evidence of torture, rape and trafficking, and in greater numbers than we have seen at previous inspections.” It concluded: “The effectiveness of the adults at risk policy...was questionable”. I would go further than that. This catalogue of failings shows that the Government’s policy is not fit for purpose."

Jess Phillips (Labour) spoke about women victims she has met in Yarl's Wood IRC. "Not only are they not assessing the people that they find in detention but the Home Office is actively seeking victims as low-hanging fruit in their drive to get deportation numbers up." She then spoke about her constituent whose partner tortured her and threatened her and her entire family. Her constituent called the police who then arrested her and locked her up in Yarl's Wood.

"There are no energy going into looking at better community options for immigration detention, yet in every area of criminal justice we see that community systems are far cheaper and are better for the human rights of the people involved." She asks the Minister for Immigration Caroline Nokes to confirm that "never again will a victim of crime be used to increase our deportation numbers."

Kate Green (Labour) then spoke about a woman who collapsed in front of her in relief at having been released from Yarl's Wood. She describes how women are released and re-detained repeatedly for no good reason. "Our system, at every stage of the process, shames us. It shames us especially in relation to the most vulnerable, those that have suffered persecution, torture and abuse."

Stuart McDonald (SNP) quoted Stephen Shaw in his first review of the detention of vulnerable people: "Detention in and of itself undermines welfare and contributes to vulnerability. It will have consequences for people long after they are released."

Shadow Minister for Immigration Afzal Khan (Labour) asked that "rather than narrowly reforming this definition of torture, the government should incorporate the High Court ruling into their wider review of detention centre rules and their Adults at Risk guidance. This should take into account the second Shaw review."

Minister for Immigration Caroline Nokes (Conservative) then spoke, explaining her justification for not waiting for the second shaw review before implimenting a new definition of torture, saying that the government was duty bound to act within a short timescale in producing a new definition of torture by the judgement of the High Court. Joan Ryan interjected, asking why the Home Office didn't speak to Stephen Shaw and ask when he hoped to publish his findings and why they decided to not return to the previous definition of torture (before the Adults at risk policy) in the interim.

Caroline Nokes said that "the Adults at Risk policy is by no means perfect. I regard it as a process, something that we will seek to improve, adapt, amend when we go forward." She asked Joan Ryan to wait for her response to the Shaw review because she intends for it to be "a very full response, providing as much information as possible and seeking to take on board Stephen Shaw's recommendations and make sure we make our detention policies better" She also said that the Home Office intention to update the Detention Centre Rules in the second half of the year gives them the opportunity to address many of the issues raised.

Caroline Nokes rejected Jess Phillip's "suggestion that there is targeting of victims and I reject the phrase 'low-hanging fruit', that is not a phrase that I recognise, but I do know we can do better." She then followed this by saying that Adult at Risk policy must balance risk of harm and immigration factors, Joan Ryan interjects "This statement beggars belief in light of the statistic: 56% of people detained are released back into the community. There clearly is a problem."

Caroline Nokes says that she received the second Shaw review at the end of April and "we are currently working very hard on our response. I am optimistic that we will bring that forward as soon as we possibly can but I do want it to be a thorough response." However she did not commit to publishing in June.

Joan Ryan concluded the debate "I can't deny that I am very disappointed in the minister's response. I don't expect her to stand here today and change policy but I hope she will go away and reflect on what is said."

She said that it's no use talking about '95% in the community' and '5% in detention', "we are talking about 27,000 people at any one time suffering from an inhumane policy that contravenes many people's human rights. It is [going after] low hanging fruit to meet immigration numbers."

"This policy will have to continue to be challenged. I hope we do not have to come back here in a years time because it is not satisfying to say'we are right', not when we think of the human cost from now til then, that could be avoided."

On 8th May 2018, Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott (Labour) asked about the Home Office's renewal of G4S’s contract to run the Brook House and Tinsley House immigration removal centres. Minister Victoria Atkins replied and explained that the government agreed a "short-term continuation of G4S’s contract to run the Gatwick immigration removal centres while further work is carried out to identify a long-term manager. The Home Office will launch a further, full competition later this year, after the outcome of two independent reviews (The Stephen Shaw review and Kate Lampard review)." The decision to extend G4S's contract was made on the basis that it would provide sufficient time reflect on the conclusions of these reviews and conduct a new "procurement exercise" in search of a new contract. She also said that G4S had "put in place a comprehensive action plan and this has quickly delivered improvements at Brook House."

A debate on the contract then followed. Diane Abbott asked why the announcement of the contract was made on the Friday before a bank holiday weekend, suggesting it might be so to avoid scrutiny. She also listed other instances of malpractice by G4S including a Panroama investigation into a G4S run youth detention centre and the fact that G4S had been fined at least 100 times for breaching its contract to run prisons between 2010 and 2016. She also referred to the death of Jimmy Mupenga while being restrained by G4S staff on a British airways flight. She said that "renewing this contract, even for two years, is not commensurate with a humane system of dealing with migrants."

Victoria Atkins said that the decision was taken during purdah (pre-election period where no government announcements are possible). Crispin Blunt (Conservative) raised the IMB report for Brook House, which was complimentary of G4S's managment. Victoria Atkins praised IMB and their important role in ensuring high standards. Joanna Cherry (SNP) said that the IMB report did however find that "the use of force against people in Brook House increased by more than 160% in the two years between 2015 and 2017" She asked if the Home Secretary had been aware of this statistic when the contract renewal was made.

Victoria Atkins replied, saying that "as soon as the “Panorama” programme was aired, the Government set out clear expectations in our action plan." She said that they have "improved training for staff and enhanced staffing levels, with recruitment and training plans in place." She also described an improved whistleblowing policy: "All staff have been issued with cards featuring telephone numbers to enable them to raise concerns confidentially, and following work with the Jill Dando Institute, G4S has trained staff to become “speak out” champions, promoting and embedding the message that whistleblowing is not just desirable, but a clear expectation when unacceptable behaviour is witnessed."

Paul Blomfield (Labour) said that he had asked the Cabinet Office whether "G4S had been considered for designation as a high-risk supplier", but that he was "stonewalled with the answer that such information is not published." Victoria Atkins said should would not comment on the discussion had with the Minister. Catherine West (Labour) asked about the criminal investigation following the scandal highlighted by Panorama. Victoria Atkins said that allegations were passed to the police. "I understand that there is one case where an investigation is ongoing." Clive Efford (Labour) criticised G4S in its delivery of public contracts as "woefully inadequate" and saying that "there is something fundamentally wrong at the heart of this company". Rupa Huq (Labour) said that "the outsourcing model is failing our public services." Diana Johnson (Labour) said that "G4S seems to be able to fail in a variety of contracts, without any consequences at all. There have been failures in prisons, electronic tagging, secure units and now immigration detention centres". Kate Green (Labour) called for a review of the tendering and provision of healthcare services in immigration detention centres, which are also run by G4S and "which seem to be woefully inadequate".

A second debate on the issue took place in the House of Lords on 9th May 2018, after a statement made by Baroness Williams of Trafford, repeating what was said by Victoria Atkins in the House of Commons. Lord Kennedy of Southwark said that a two year extension of G4S's contract was not a "short-term continuation" and should not be considered such. He asked what other options were considered.

Lord Paddick (Liberal Democrat) asked why the statement about the G4S contract was made on the Friday of a bank holiday weekend and said that a time-limit should be imposed on detention. Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench) said that it was important to find the right staff, with the "right atitude towards immigration" to man the detention centres. Lord Judd (Labour) asked "how far commercial culture can satisfactorily replace the tradition of public service, with its concentration on people?" Baroness Williams of Trafford replied to all questions asked.

On 16th April 2018, Labour MP David Lammy asked the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement on the status of Windrush children (These children arrived in Britain from the West Indies in the 1960s and 1970s after their parents were invited as British Citizens under British Nationality Act 1948. Under the 1971 Immigration Act, all Commonwealth citizens already living in the UK were given indefinite leave to remain. However, the Home Office did not keep a record of those granted leave to remain or issue any paperwork confirming it, meaning it is difficult for the individuals to now prove they are in the UK legally.)

During the debate that followed some questions and statements were made about Windrush children who had been wrongfully detained and/or deported. David Lammy asked "how many people have been deported? ... Can she tell the House how many have been detained as prisoners in their own country?"

Home Secretary Amber Rudd replied "I am not aware of any specific cases of a person being removed in these circumstances."

In response to a question by Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd said "The right hon. Lady asks particularly about removals and detention, and I reassure her and the House that I have given an explicit instruction. In accordance with my wishes today, there will be no removals or detention as part of any assistance to help former Commonwealth citizens get their proper documentation in place."

Yvette Cooper MP (Labour) said that the Home Secretary "should now be instituting a huge review, right across the Home Office, of all Windrush-generation cases, and not just suspending deportations and detention."

In topical questions that day Luciana BergerMP (Labour) shared a story from one of her constituents "My constituent Charles Mukerjee has special educational needs. He and his family were recently detained in Yarl’s Wood. In detention, his medication was taken away, and he had a number of seizures and stopped eating. A doctor who saw him there said that he was traumatised. Will the Home Secretary urgently look at this family’s experience and see what changes need to be made to ensure that we treat all people who are detained humanely and in a dignified way, especially those with learning disabilities and mental ill health?"

On 28th March 2018, Liberal Democrat Lord Scriven asked the government what progress they had made in implementing the recommendations of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration in the report, An investigation into the Home Office’s Handling of Asylum Claims Made on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation, March to June 2014.

Baroness Williams of Trafford answered that of the eight recommendations made in the report, they had entirely accepted seven, and partially accepted one. All have been implemented.

Lord Scriven asked whether the government would end the indefinite detention of LGBTI asylum seekers in line with implementation of "Yogyakarta principle plus 10, on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity"

Baroness Williams of Trafford said that the Government "does not detain asylum seekers indefinitely" and that "only a small minority of claimants are detained while their claim is considered... Detention under immigration powers is used only very sparingly"

There were further questions about the Government's treatment of LGBT asylum seekers in immigration detention.

Baroness Williams of Trafford said that "the training of people dealing with LGBT asylum claims in detention or seeking their removal has been done in conjunction with both Stonewall and UKLGIG to absolutely ensure humane treatment of LGBT people in asylum" and that "all people in the detention estate have training in dealing with LGBT claims and claims on the grounds of faith. "

On 6th February 2018 at 1.27 pm there was an urgent question asked by Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott followed by a debate in the House of Commons about the ongoing hunger strike at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire and about immigration detention more generally.

Diane Abbott asked the Home Secretary to make a statement on the detention centre at Yarl’s Wood.

Minister for Immigration Caroline Nokes said that immigration detention is an “essential part of an effective immigration system.” She spoke about respect for the dignity and welfare of detainees, the length of time people are detained for (“92% of people were detained for four months or less, and nearly two thirds were detained for less than a month.”) and the provision of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week healthcare in removal centres. She said that hunger-strikers, such as those in Yarl’s Wood, are closely monitored. “Home Office staff will not only ensure that detainees are informed about how their actions may impact on their health, but make it clear that we will continue to seek to progress their case.”

Diane Abbott spoke about her recent trip to Yarl’s Wood with Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti, where Serco-employed centre staff told her categorically that there was no hunger strike. She referred to a letter received by hunger-strikers that states “the fact that you are currently refusing food and/or fluid…may, in fact, lead to your case being accelerated”. She questioned whether this was evidence of punitive deportations for those women who “dared to go on hunger strike.” Abbott asked the Minister when she first knew of the hunger strike, when she knew about this letter, whether the letter had been approved by officials and “How is it possible to accelerate deportations and conform to natural justice, as surely all cases are expedited in any event?”

Caroline Nokes said that the letter is only given to women after an “extensive welfare interview” and that “the letter is, in fact, part of official Home Office guidance and was published on the gov.uk website in November last year. It was agreed after consultation with NHS England, Medical Justice, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and a range of non-governmental organisations.” [The letter can be viewed online, and is part of the Detention Service Order on ‘Detainees who refuse to eat or drink’. Medical Justice has commented that they were consulted but that they responded by saying “That approach is wholly inappropriate and contrary to clinical best practice” and that they had been ignored.]

She continued that she heard about the hunger-strike at the same time as Diane Abbott did and said “I wish to do nothing that encourages them to put their own health at risk by suggesting that doing so might prevent their removal from this country.”

Desmond Swayne (Conservative) said that “Accelerated processing would only be a threat if the judicial process was not seen to be fair and independent. Is it?” Caroline Nokes replied that there is an extensive judicial process.

Shadow SNP spokesperson for Immigration, Asylum and Border Control Stuart McDonald referred to immigration detention as a “stain on our democracy an affront to the rule of law.” He asked “Why does the UK detain more than other European countries? Why can every other EU country manage with a time limit on immigration detention, but not the UK? Why do the Government continue to detain vulnerable people, including victims of torture, to the serious detriment of their health and wellbeing?”

Caroline Nokes said that immigration detention is decided on a case-by-case basis and that “Some 95% of people with no right to be in this country are managed within the community. Only 5% will be within the immigration removal centres at any one time.”

Chair of Home Affairs Committee Yvette Cooper (Labour) repeated calls for there to be no punitive action taken for those on hunger strike. Anna Soubry (Conservative) said that “nobody likes” immigration detention but that it was the “right policy to pursue”. Gavin Newslands (SNP) spoke about his constituents refusal of a short-term holding facility being placed near Glasgow airport.

Jess Phillips (Labour) spoke about a female constituent who “rang the police because of a threat to kill her from a violent ex-husband, was taken to Yarl’s Wood rather than a refuge, detained there and has since been granted indefinite leave to remain. She asked about whether such occurrences deter women from calling the police.

Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat) asked whether Stephen Shaw’s second review had concluded, when she expected to receive it and the Home Office to publish it. Caroline Nokes said that they anticipate it very shortly.

Gareth Snell (Labour) spoke on behalf of Ruth Smeeth (Labour) thanking Caroline Nokes for intervening in the deportation of Opelo Kgari and her mother. He asked “Does the Minister agree that the fact that Members of Parliament have to resort to weekend telephone calls directly to Ministers to try to stop individuals from being deported before they have had their due process is a sign that the immigration system in this country is simply failing?”

David Lammy (Labour) said that “the possibility that the Government will accelerate deportation on that basis must be contrary to human rights” and described it as a “cruel and unusual punishment” Gill Furniss (Labour) spoke about intervening in the detention of her constituent whose immediate healthcare needs were not met in Yarl’s Wood and was at risk of going blind. Kate Green (Labour) spoke about the plight of people stuck in the loop of “detention and release, detention and release”. Stella Creasy (Labour) spoke about cheaper and “much more compassionate and humane ways in which we can manage our immigration system”. The local MP for Yarl’s Wood, Mohammad Yasin (Labour) called for an urgent review of the detention system. David Linden (SNP) asked simply how many people in Yarl’s Wood are on suicide watch. Caroline Nokes said that those with mental health issues are kept under close supervision.

On 27th February 2018 at 3pm there was a debate in the House of Lords about the ongoing hunger strike at Yarl’s Wood Immigration Removal Centre in Bedfordshire.

Lord Paddick asked what steps the Government are taking to respond and said that “One of the main reasons for the hunger strikes is that people are being detained unfairly, unreasonably and indefinitely. One woman has described as like being kidnapped, not knowing when it will end or what will happen to her.”

Baroness Williams of Trafford speaking on behalf of Government, suggested that there are many reasons why someone might refuse food and fluid, including dietary and religious reasons. She also suggested that detention is not indefinite when a detainee is reassessed for immigration and bail every four months. “It is fair to say that 92% of people in detention do not stay there for more than four months. The notion that someone might be detained indefinitely simply is not there. The purpose of detention is removal; it is not to detain indefinitely.”

Lord Kennedy of Southwark asked whether she agreed that “rape is a form of torture” considering that government policy says victims of torture are not suitable for detention.

Baroness Williams of Trafford said that victims of sexual abuse are deemed vulnerable adults. She said that “We are working with NGOs on the definition of torture, because the courts challenged us on it, but we are alive to some of the vulnerable people who might be in detention for a number of reasons, including sexual abuse.”

Lord Alton of Liverpool, who visited Yarl’s Wood and felt significant improvements had been made, spoke about the significant desperation and “shadow of fear” that hangs over women held there. He raised the issue of the women who had been taken to Yarl’s Wood after living in the UK for 24 years, since the age of 11. He asked about the wellbeing of those on hunger strike and about their access to legal aid and representation for a resolution to specific cases.

Baroness Williams of Trafford agreed to investigate individual cases outlined by Lord Alton and said that there are specific rules in immigration detention for how to treat those with mental health and vulnerability.

Baroness Lister of Burtersett raised indefinite detention, saying that it is not the case that people are never released, it is that they don’t know when that will be. She said that evidence shows this to have a devastating impact on mental health. She asked whether the Minister will ask Stephen Shaw to widen his review and look at whether indefinite detention should be ended “in line with what happens in other countries”

Baroness Williams of Trafford repeated that most do not stay in detention for more than four months. She referred to the short review Stephen Shaw is undertaking, looking at progress made against his previous review. “The work will be completed in the Spring and its findings laid before the House.”

The Bishop of Salisbury asked what percentage of those held in immigration detention centres are released back into the community.

Baroness Williams of Trafford said she would refer back to the reverend with that information but that “somebody would be in detention only for the purposes of removal, and immigration bail would be in line with a risk assessment done on that person.”

Baroness Hamwee said that Government’s policy on achieving swift removal and the operation of their ‘Adults at Risk’ policy are not working. She said that the hunger strike in Yarl’s Wood is “the sort of response one might expect from people who feel unjustly imprisoned” and that Government should reconsider looking at mechanisms in Scandinavian countries, where “work is done successfully within the community to encourage people to leave when they have no right to be here.”

Baroness Williams of Trafford said she disagreed and that Government policy is working. She blamed those in detention for their enlogated stays, stating that people stay longer in detention because “they might themselves have launched further appeals against their removal.”

Lord Green of Deddington asked for balance on the subject and stated that “fundamentally we have to be able to remove people or the entire credibility of the system disappears.”

Baroness Williams of Trafford agreed with Lord Green and said that “the ultimate aim of the detention centre is removal.”

On 5th February 2018, the House of Commons debated the publication of the proposed Immigration White Paper. This paper will outline plans for the UK’s post-Brexit immigration system. During the debate Caroline Nokes noted that the Immigration paper will not be published until a Brexit transition deal is struck.

During the debate, Heidi Alexander (Labour, Lewisham East) asked how many immigrants from outside the EU who "are in the UK, who have had an immigration application refused, but have not had removal or deportation proceedings initiated against them?" Caroline Nokes replied saying that "we work very hard to make sure that people who are in this country without permission find it a very difficult environment in which to live." She described policies that have made it harder for undocumented immigrants and refused asylum-seekers to have a bank account or a driving licence or to rent property.

Paula Sherriff (Labour, Dewsbury) raised Yarl's Wood IRC and other detention centres as examples of an "obvious injustice" and places where "vulnerable people have been held, effectively indefinitely, when most of them have not actually committed any crime." She asked whether immigration detention will be reviewed in this paper. Caroline Nokes said that "detention will continue to form part of our immigration policy".

The consultation on the Immigration White Paper will be in October 2018.

On 5th of February 2018, the House of Lords debated access to adequate legal advice for failed asylum seekers facing removal.

Lord Roberts of Llandudn asked whether the government intended to ensure that anyone facing deportation had access to adequate legal advice. Lord Keen of Elie, answering on behalf of the Government, said that they have "commenced the post-implementation review of legal aid, which will include the scope of legal aid for immigration and asylum cases." and that legal aid is currently available for people challenging their detention and/or asylum refusal. Lord Roberts followed up by stating that many asylum seekers are unable to access legal advice for various reasons. He blamed this lack of access to legal advice for the many "unsound decisions" made by the Home Office that are later reversed. He said that in 10 years there has been a quarter of a million Home Office decisions overturned by appeal. Lord Keen stated that "all persons detained in immigration removal centres now have access to a duty solicitor and therefore have access to legal advice."

Lord Beecham raised the point of the Home Office attempting to deport people who have been living in this country for decades. Lord Keen stated that "the period for which a person has remained illegally in this country should not be and is not a determinant of their right to remain here."

Lord Thomas of Gresford raised issues from a recent report by the Bar Council on immigration detention. He said that 3,000 people at one time are held in immigration detention at a cost of £34,000 per person. Over half are then ultimately released into the community after successful appeals. He raised the specific case of an asylum seeker with mental health challenges who was detained unlawfully and awarded damages. He asked whether the Minister will review "the means and merits test applied by the Legal Aid Agency, which academic research shows operates to exclude detainees from legal aid by, “seizing upon the tiniest thing”, to declare their applications ineligible?" Lord Keen explained that the Legal Aid Agency is independent of Government. "The application of LASPO—the legal aid Act—is the subject of internal review at present."

The Bishop of St. Albans raised points from research by the Children's Society that found that hundreds of children are being left without a legal safety net. "Only 12 grants for exceptional case funding were made in 2015-16, fewer than 1% of the expected number of cases under the previous system." Lord Keen stated that "103 children were put into detention in immigration-related matters in 2016, of which 42 were under 12. Some of those may have been unaccompanied but, under the policy of the 2014 Act, unaccompanied children should not actually go into immigration removal centres; they should be held pending removal decisions. With regard to exceptional case funding, the figures for the first two quarters of 2017 indicate that the success rate for immigration-related applications was 73%. Some 652 applications were made during that period."